What’s changed at Foster High?

When asked how she and the rest of Foster High’s staff have turned their school around, Principal Pat Larsen provided this list. While each of the three elements – instruction, structure and culture – are distinct, she said, they also all affect each other. In each area, Larson listed the questions she asked herself as the school’s leader, the current state of the school, and the shifts and changes made over the past two years.

Questions

  • Is classroom instruction challenging students?
  • Is there support for students to access and be successful in a rigorous curriculum?
  • Is the instruction aligned with standards?
  • Is the instruction standards-based?
  • Are teachers able to differentiate what and how they teach to meet the different learning styles of the students in their classrooms?
  • Is the instruction relevant and connecting to real life situations?
  • Are the curriculum and instruction culturally relevant?
  • Do teachers know how to teach students who are learning English as well as learning content?
  • Are teachers preparing students for the high-stakes tests that are required for graduation?

Entry Points

  • Students removed from school were not allowed to make up work (board policy)
  • Standards-based instruction was not being used. Traditional teaching practices were still in place.
  • Support for students was after school and was supported by an outside agency. It was disorganized and didn’t appear to be making a difference.
  • Most of the teachers were not providing after-school support to students. The teachers who were providing that support were not being compensated for their additional time.
  • The curriculum and instructional strategies were not aligned within the grade levels nor between grade levels. Each teacher was doing his or her own thing, “independent contractors”
  • Teachers were not utilizing instructional strategies that provided “scaffolding” to students.

Changes

  • Introduced Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to all staff to understand the shifts of instruction that had to take place in order for outcomes for students to change.
  • Hired a consultant to work with the English Department to understand and implement the CCSS and shift instructional practices. Aligned the curriculum and instructional practices within the department and grade levels and created a trajectory between grade levels.
  • In collaboration with the Assessment Director planned the Next Generation Science Standards draft implementation plan with teacher leaders from elementary, middle and high school. The plan was given to district office leadership for funding and implementation.
  • Increased the work with the consultant to include another department upon the department chair's request.
  • Provided summer “boot camps” for students entering Advanced Placement courses for the first time.
  • Provided additional paid time for Advanced Placement (AP) teachers to work with students to ensure they were successful in AP courses and to prepare for AP exams.
  • Enhanced the peer mentoring program, Ignite, to support incoming 9th graders
  • Implemented AVID strategies in the Advisory program to increase student’s awareness and control over their own success in school. (Referring to the Advancement Via Individual Determination program.)
  • Changed the focus of Advisory to College and Career Readiness as Navigation 101 disappeared and CCR (college career readiness) was implemented at the state level
  • Worked with an outside consultant to look at student work in mathematics for our struggling math students.
  • Continue to implement complex instruction in some math courses
  • Began the implementation of Question, Predict, Observe, Evidence and Evaluation (QPOE 2) of instruction in all science classes

Questions

  • How do you manage students in a physical structure that is too small for the number of students currently enrolled? The school was built for 600 and has a current enrollment of 850.
  • Is there a systematic approach to how to do school every day?
  • Are there bell schedules in place that allow for maximized instructional time as well as time for the other events necessary at schools?
  • Does the master schedule “flow” so there are adequate seats for students in required classes? If not, why not?
  • Are assessment structures in place so students have an adequate organized testing environment so they can demonstrate their best without distraction?
  • Are assessment practices structured so results are not questioned and students get the scores they earned?
  • Are the structures predictable and consistent?

Entry Points

  • Inconsistent discipline was being used, punishment vs. teaching
  • The master schedule did not “flow.” Too many students had failed courses and were forcing seat counts in required courses to be high. Upper class students were taking up the seats in classes that should be for lower classes.
  • There was no predictability or consistency day to day and week to week.

Changes

  • In collaboration with the counseling department, created a master schedule that “flowed."
  • Created a system where students could recover credits online without going back to the same classroom to do the same thing again.
  • Created a support structure for students where after-school support was provided in an organized structure.
  • Added additional adult paraprofessional support to the after-school program, more adult help
  • Extended after-school support during peak times-- at the end of semester and end of the school year to provide additional support and study time for students.
  • Had teachers identify their “office hours” when they are available to help students and paid teachers for the additional time.
  • Created a meeting structure for intentional collaborative time.
  • Added more Advanced Placement courses to the schedule to increase the access to rigorous classes for all students.
  • Revised the process for accessing Advanced Placement courses
  • Through federal Race to the Top funds we implemented the following systems: 1. Early warning indicator system to identify students who had the potential to not be successful in high school. 2. Added an on-time graduation specialist to track students within the building and monitor graduation data. 3. Added an in-building assessment coordinator to assist with tracking students' graduation test requirements and help organize and implement the ongoing and changing state-required assessments.

Questions

  • What kind of interactions are there between teachers and students? Between students and students? Between administrators and teachers? And between administrators and students?
  • Do the administrators believe “yes they can” in relationship to teachers and students?
  • What does the discipline data tell us? Are students being punished? Or are they being taught how to behave differently?
  • How do staff and students perceive the administration? Supportive? Or non-supportive?
  • How are teachers being supported in the classroom? With difficult students? With improving learning for all students? With their own professional growth to continue to improve in their professional practice.

Entry Points

  • The focus on academics and learning as a priority were lost.
  • Students were being punished and removed from school for behavior and lack of attendance
  • Teachers did not receive ongoing feedback to increase their own professional growth. Teachers were not being nor had been observed or evaluated in classrooms.
  • Teachers were not working collaboratively
  • Teachers were frustrated and angry with administration and district office. Lack of trust was prevalent.
  • Students did not know the expectations or how to behave in different settings. i.e. pep assemblies vs. formal assemblies

Changes

  • Focused the culture on College and Career for students, so they have a plan for where they are going after high school.
  • Added the Career Fair in the spring
  • Increased the College Fair opportunities
  • Teacher evaluation system changed from old system to a robust “coaching”, support, evaluation system.
  • Created the conditions for healthy collaborative communication between teachers in a professional learning community model.
  • Taught teachers how to lead discussions looking at data, analyzing it and identifying action steps.
  • Rebuilt trust between teachers and administration by listening and coaching teachers in and through the new evaluation process. We were building our own credibility by providing the appropriate support to teachers that they identified themselves.
  • Increased outside support for students and their families and provided interpreters for families who do not speak English. 1. DREAM project support. 2. Title I parent nights 3. College application nights 4. Scholarship application support
  • Added support to different student groups to increase their sense of belonging: 1. Changed some traditions to include cultural events i.e., cultural assembly at Homecoming, cultural stories at different assemblies. 2. Added Black Student Union, Asian Culture Club, Educating Pacific Islanders Club. 3. Continued MECHA, a student organization that promotes higher education, culture and history for Hispanic students. 3. Continued support of GSA (Gay Straight Alliance.)